Rice Theory: Why Eastern Cultures Are More Cooperative (2014)

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/05/08/310477497/rice-theory-why-eastern-cultures-are-more-cooperative

by thunderbong • 5 months ago

41 72 5 months ago

bob1029• 5 months ago

Eastern cultures seem better at things like running manufacturing plants too. Any situation where sublimation of the ego can provide better outcomes.

I have my own theory that companies like Samsung and TSMC build plants in western nations primarily to hybridize this culture and avoid falling into certain traps. If Samsung can figure out how to get their American flash and LSI lines to yield the same as the Korean lines, they've probably achieved a more robust manufacturing process.

wyldfire• 5 months ago

More robust in that it tolerates individualistic workers? Interesting.

cucumber37328422• 5 months ago

More robust in that if everyone just does their jobs in accordance with process you potentially create process traps and settle into bad local maximums.

You need some number of people with ego to tell you what they really think, be resistant to things they see as bad, etc, etc. Otherwise you will waste untold sums in the time it takes to realize your mistakes they would have told you about a week after you rolled them out.

Aloha• 5 months ago

I dont know that they even need to get the same yield to get the benefits, even as low as 80% of the productivity would get you the benefits.

funkyfiddler369• 5 months ago

Any situation where sublimation of the ego can provide better outcomes.

Cooperation has to serve the ego, individual and/or collective, or there will be no cooperation.

Think of it this way: some almost Fascists back in the day knew how that thing would end and/or play out and decided against cooperation.

Enough actual Fascists survived anyway and the narrative and their actions still serve the same conviction. Some are rich and influential and fascist as fuck while others live in delusions.

tedggh• 5 months ago

I spent some time in China working in manufacturing. I remember talking to some of the guys there. As it was explained to me, everything they had, their home, kids school, wife’s job was owned by the employer. Meaning if you lose your job you lose everything. I remember how incredibly difficult was to get things done there, no one wanted to make decisions. That was many years ago, maybe things have changed.

Tade0• 5 months ago

My region hosts a large Korean manufacturer and to me reality is actually simpler: rank-and-file employees are locals, management is Korean.

Those of my friends who worked for Korean companies generally agree that decision makers are not interested in the local culture beyond whether people belonging to it will accept certain rules.

It so happens that my country has a culture of overwork, so we're compatible enough.

laffOr• 5 months ago

Meh. A hundred years ago, TinkerNews commenters would have observed that Western cultures are obviously better at running manufacturing plants, because at the time the West were where manufacturing happened.

evolighting2• 5 months ago

In my view, it is because if you don't, you die. This isn't merely about the division of labor; it’s about war between nations. The peoples here have endured thousands of years of cycles between violent upheaval and social stability. If you cannot rely on organizational cohesion to weather a crisis, you simply won't survive.

How does this differ from the Middle East? Because our friends in the Middle East have truly 'died off' in waves; many of the peoples who once inhabited those lands have long since been replaced."

monocasa• 5 months ago

many of the peoples who once inhabited those lands have long since been replaced

That is overstated. "Arab" in a lot of cases is more a cultural moniker than a genetic one. For instance the Palestinians are some of the genetically closest modern populations to the ancient Canaanite remains we've studied.

evolighting2• 5 months ago

True, I didn't phrase that perfectly. It is my opinion that climate change poses an even greater threat to the Middle East. It's reaching a point where states and groups can no longer sustain the massive resources required to fuel large-scale warfare like they used to. Therefore, what I am really getting at is that the sheer intensity of competition in East Asia—particularly those existential social upheavals—is the true catalyst for what we call a 'cooperative' culture.

zozbot2344• 5 months ago

This is unsurprising. Wholesale genetic replacement basically doesn't exist unless there's a huge plague that kills 90% of the population or something (this happened in the Americas when the Europeans arrived, there are other cases of it in history but it's plenty rare). From an ancestry perspective, populations tend to be derived from the people that were there thousands of years prior; cultures and even elites can spread and migrate and cause huge material changes, but the bulk of the people just stay put.

squeefers8• 5 months ago

This isn't merely about the division of labor; it’s about war between nations

society isnt one big team that cooperates, its a bunch of slaves trapped in place by the lord/king/raj so he can tax them. he does it by claiming to govern and protect the land, and he kills people that dont agree with any part of it.

its telling that most armies throughout history were full of people who had to be FORCED to join. people arent "cooperating" the way you think they are

Someone• 5 months ago

I see a link with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polder_model:

“The polder model (Dutch: poldermodel) is a method of consensus decision-making, based on the Dutch version of consensus-based economic and social policymaking in the 1980s and 1990s. It gets its name from the Dutch word (polder) for tracts of land enclosed by dikes.

[…]

A third explanation refers to a unique aspect of the Netherlands, that it consists in large part of polders, land reclaimed from the sea, which requires constant pumping and maintenance of the dykes. Ever since the Middle Ages, when the process of land reclamation began, different societies living in the same polder have been forced to cooperate because without unanimous agreement on shared responsibility for maintenance of the dykes and pumping stations, the polders would have flooded and everyone would have suffered. Crucially, even when different cities in the same polder were at war, they still had to cooperate in this respect. This is thought to have taught the Dutch to set aside differences for a greater purpose.”

pavlov• 5 months ago

This is one of the things that makes sci-fi stories set on Moon and Mars colonies more interesting than generic space opera with abundant/unexplained resourcing.

Unfortunately the Moon/Mars genre has been tainted by Heinlein’s “Moon is a Harsh Mistress” which recognized this question and solved it by making everyone a true libertarian who would rather nobly suffocate than steal air. When a criminal element shows up, it’s a racial stereotype shipped from Earth and the enlightened lunar dwellers simply kick him out and proceed with their zero-crime paradise of private property. Ridiculous book but understandably influential in its era.

atq2119• 5 months ago

Don't forget the literal deus ex machina in the form of the computer that coordinates everything.

rmonvfer• 5 months ago

This is precisely what happens in the Apple TV series “For All Mankind” an I think it’s a pretty realistic take on how future lunar and Martian settlements would work (either everyone cooperates or everyone is cooked)

unwind• 5 months ago

How about "R, G, B Mars" [1], then?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_trilogy

rayiner8• 5 months ago

The Indian subcontinent also mostly farms rice but doesn’t display effective large scale cooperation or rule following. I wonder why?

opan• 5 months ago

Perhaps related to the caste system. Not sure how relevant that still is these days.

boxed3• 5 months ago

It's very relevant. Untouchables are fairly regularly murdered with the police doing nothing, and scandals breaking regularly about caste based discrimination showing up in US corporations from immigrants even.

nelblu• 5 months ago

caste system will likely never die in India. I once even joked to my friend that one day when Indians will start accepting gay marriages they would post a matrimonial ad something along these lines - "Looking for an intelligent, well-behaved, educated, fair coloured gay groom for our son (Brahmin only)".

Pearse• 5 months ago

Could it be that they were colonized by Britain?

(I'm not sure if this is what you were insinuating, but it would make sense)

boxed3• 5 months ago

Based on the history of the region the opposite seems like a better assumption to me.

zozbot2344• 5 months ago

Hong Kong was colonized by Britain, doing just fine now. The Mughal invasions were probably the biggest adverse shock.

rayiner8• 5 months ago

It could be colonization but it would predate the British. The British East India company colonized India in the first place by exploiting the lack of cooperation. At the time, there wasn’t the overwhelming disparity between the countries there is today. Mughal India was one of the gunpowder empires, with the largest military in the world in the late 17th and early 18th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_the_Mughal_Empire. The per-capita GDP gap between India and Britain was only a factor of 2. But India’s vastly large population meant it had about four times the state revenues.

Britain couldn’t have, and didn’t, colonize India the way the Mughals had: through a direct land war. Instead, the British East India company entered into deals with various port cities one by one to establish toe holds. Then in the Battle of Plassey, they overthrew the Nawab with just 750 British soldiers and 2,000 Indian mercenaries against a Mughal army of 50,000. The British persuaded the Mughal generals to defect, and the Nawab, fearing further defections, capitulated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plassey

JKCalhoun• 5 months ago

Growing up, my American-addled brain could not comprehend putting the "good of others" above my own empowerment. The focus on the individual (me, I suppose) was a thing I was, for some reason, proud of about the U.S. (or perhaps "the West" by extension?).

Only as an adult, with a wife, kids (and perhaps a better perspective of the world?) did I realize how foolish I was growing up. And I see more and more how we, as a nation, constantly pay the price for that mindset.

simonmales• 5 months ago

I made fun of the 'America First' campaign slogan and referred to it as 'America Only'.

Then you can quickly use this idea on people who put themselves in front of others. And the reality is it's not about being first, rather it's only about them, not what comes after them.

ferguess_k• 5 months ago

I always heard that individualism is centric to the American mind, but on the other hand, I found that American interests groups (corporations especially) are very good at "hunting" in a group. I talked to some mid-level policy-maker friends in China and they recognize that the American corporations are very good at working as a "wolf pack", while the Chinese ones usually fight each other -- you can see examples in Huawei versus Zhongxing when both are competing in foreign markets.

alphazard• 5 months ago

Naive self-interest is a characteristic of children. You didn't stumble upon some ancient wisdom of another culture, you just matured and established a family, which your instincts tell you to put before yourself.

The West is individualistic, but all that means is that individuals choose their circle of concern. Without any further guidance, that means that innate instincts about who is important (family, close friends) dominate, rather than a forced narrative about the collective.

zozbot2344• 5 months ago

Kids have very little agency to begin with, so looking out for #1 is a fully rational strategy from their POV. As an adult, you grow a lot more comfortable with your situation and it becomes natural to "expand the circle of concern" beyond oneself.

watwut• 5 months ago

Kids do think about others and cooperate, they do have natural empathy and care too. A lot more in cooperative cultures where they are taught to be like that. Less in individualistic cultures where they are taught to not be empathetic. Even within West, there is range of individualism. Netherland is different then USA and both are different then Spain.

It is not just instinct that makes some people (including kids) dominant, it is also that they are being actively taught to act like that. The natural thing is for parents to teach kids own values, both in a planned and conscious way and in the "by the way" style.

jgeada• 5 months ago

Not the "West", obsessive single minded individualism is a US characteristic. All other western nations (read: Europe) realize that there is significant value to society and that to achieve things we need to work as a group.

gjsman-1000• 5 months ago

However, complaints about this always ring hollow because it’s constantly tied to a political goal.

“Americans are so individualistic, they don’t care about climate change.”

For how many Americans don’t care about their credit score, or bank account, or student debt, or local elections, or countless other things directly immediately affecting their lives, that’s not the case. It’s more that humans A) are bad at caring about the future and B) don’t trust scientists for any number of reasons they wouldn’t trust any other human meaning C) the only way to change this is to convince them, not lecture them, just like any other group that wants power, because no group is intrinsically special regarding human communication.

jerkstate• 5 months ago

Honestly, having spent a lot of time in Korea (which famously grew so much rice that visitors from Japan and China from the 16th century were astounded by their bounty of food), I disagree with the premise..

Queueing discipline is non-existent; people will take what they want without waiting for others who arrived first. Business standards for fair dealing are just as bad if not worse than many western societies. Family/personal connections are favored and nepotism is rampant. Driving behavior is extremely selfish and causes a lot of accidents (running red lights, default behavior at uncontrolled intersections, etc). Their problems with concentration of money and power are just as bad if not worse than the west with chaebols essentially above the law and abusing their workers to the extent that people have no time for families - so What makes Asian societies more “cooperative?” Is it just their attitude that they think they are more cooperative?

jjcc• 5 months ago

There might be 2 types: passive cooperative and active cooperative. Eastern Asian are likely more obedient. They behave better collectively under good leadership.

But they are not good at self-organized activities. Without an authority they are more chaotic.

Statistic features of populations are less understood not only because of lack of scientific method but also it's a taboo. However, there are some consensus among the elites within the populations but can not speak aloud.

Yizahi3• 5 months ago

Are they, though? Outside of Japan and it's former colonies which they were trying to assimilate into the same culture, Korea and Taiwan. Just a quick look at the road traffic tells a lot about culture being individualistic or cooperative. Or a garbage problem. Or public greenery problem. Basically any social issue where good cooperation is not immediately rewarded and has to be done either out of the goodness of the heart or because a person is capable of long term thinking.

I'm thinking that the real culprit of collaborative culture is the historic bidirectional relations between the high ruler of the land and his vassals, and same down the chain. If the rule was absolute and one directional (down) throughout most of the land history, then there is not much chance that collaborative culture may develop at the lower levels. And if there was a bidirectional relations, even very limited, if rulers weren't almighty but sometimes had their own responsibilities towards subjects, then the collaborative culture had a higher chance to evolve.

bwestergard• 5 months ago

"collaborative culture is the historic bidirectional relations between the high ruler of the land and his vassals, and same down the chain"

Are you suggesting this was the case in parts pre-modern Europe?

Yizahi3• 5 months ago

Of course, over the past few centuries. Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, Polish-Lithuanian Constitution and many other central documents limiting powers of the highest ruler.

As an example more familiar to me - Kievan Rus and its region (modern day Ukraine, Russia). Duchies in the region had been closely following western Europe countries, right up until Golden Horde invasion and continued occupation. After that few centuries of despotia, then Russian Empire, then USSR effectively destroyed almost all collaborative culture. But on the other hand western Ukraine managed to avoid most of that and preserved its culture over the centuries. And so in the 21st century that preserved core managed to jump-start democratic revolution in the country, while protests in Russia mostly fizzled out, with some exceptions of course.

terminalshort• 5 months ago

I don't think this sort of analysis works. Cooperation in one area doesn't necessarily indicate cooperative behavior in another. Anyone who has skied in Europe and the US and seen the absolute anarchy and chaos of a European lift "line" can tell you that.

sidewndr46• 5 months ago

I don't really think looking at road traffic is a good example here. I grew up in the US, so my first thoughts are "well the signage is inadequate, it appears lanes aren't respected & if there are traffic control devices they aren't being followed".

I've also driven in a bunch of different places, including the left-hand drive portion of the United States. So I've seen the wide spectrum of driving. I could just as easily remark that in some parts of Asia, road traffic has a general degree of lawlessness to it. Laws aren't enforced or are absent in the first place. Yet somehow it appears that in any populated area hundreds of thousands of people are able to participate in road traffic each day and somehow be productive members of society and economy. All of this happens in the absence of legal coercion. I'm not going to leap to "it's a libertarian utopia" but if people can co-exist in a society in a productive way without legal coercion and have it not just immediately become violent I think that is admirable.

Yizahi3• 5 months ago

To expand on this point - individualistic culture doesn't necessarily mean that individual wants to harm others or himself. It's just that's not a highest priority. So yes, in the chaotic driving people manage to not kill each other most of the time. But it doesn't make it cooperative per definition. It's carefully adversarial more like. For example a pedestrian crossing the road will never see a driver braking and stopping to allow him to pass. Such action gives no immediate benefit to the driver and is only possible in the cooperative culture. So instead pedestrian and driver are not collaborating and just hope to wing it somehow on the spot. And if pedestrian is not moving predictably, it's not a driver's problem.

Or worker rights for example. Maybe one can hope to negotiate a better salary for himself if everyone is secretive and individualistic all the time (the temporary embarrassed millionaire trope), so no one pushes for unionization and worker rights and benefits together. Stuff like that.

rdfc-xn-uuid2• 5 months ago

X (formerly twitter)-tier generalization.

rayiner8• 5 months ago

It’s an NPR article about a peer-reviewed academic study. It’s the exact opposite of Twitter.

IAmBroom3• 5 months ago

Peer-reviewed implies a certain minimum level of authentic research, but it doesn't guarantee much of it.

rsynnott• 5 months ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story

squeefers8• 5 months ago

listen, every weeb on here knows japan = culture of respect, forgetting the rampant racism, the tentacle porn etc

IAmBroom3• 5 months ago

Exactly. "And that's why Asians are from Jupiter and Westerners are from Mercury."

meyum332• 5 months ago

Eastern culture seems too big a term. What do you think is cooperative in Chinese culture? The whole point of the Chinese imperial ruling system post-Qin is to make sure people don’t cooperate to secure the emperor’s rule. It worked wonders for two millennia. Then the totalitarian Leninist system perfected it with modern technology, party organization and propaganda. The modern mainland Chinese people cooperate because there is a powerful central government pushing. Random people have minimal trust towards one another for cooperation. Yes we build power plants and highspeed rails. But we also quarantine cities and abort fetuses en mass and engineer famines with the same system. It’s cooperation with totalitarian characteristics.

hmm37• 5 months ago

In China at least the equivalence of WWI and WWII was basically the Warring States period (around 400-200BC), where tons of people die, therefore generally a strong dislike for war in Chinese culture. I always thought that WWII created a similar feeling in at least Europe.

There were other periods also of disunity in China, and consequently tons of people ended up dying as well. I'm sure it's similar with e.g. Japan where they had their own "three kingdoms" period.

rayiner8• 5 months ago

Remember that the study is westerners trying to make sense of psychological surveys conducted in east asia with the words they have in their vocabulary.

I agree that “cooperation” isn’t the perfect word. What they really mean is that east asian countries are good at large-scale projects: rice farming back then, building high speed rail today.

But westerners overlook that east asian societies, specifically China, often tolerate openly self-interested behavior: pursuit of personal advantage, or advantage for one’s family, without regard to others. There’s a funny Ronny Chieng joke that east asian mothers want their kids to be doctors, but view “helping people” as an undesirable consequence of the job.

By contrast, we think of westerners, and Americans specifically, as highly individualistic, but many subgroups of Americans have a high level of self-organization. They’ll make and socially enforce rules without anyone telling them what to do.

meyum332• 5 months ago

I've always thought that the American individualist/China familial is looking at things absolutely upside down. For the Chinese, the family mimics the tyrannical nature of the government (and/or the other way around). The keyboard social observer of me find the American family value of equality, respect for autonomy, unconditional love and support more conducive to forming stronger bonds. Anyone who's lived in a typical Chinese family should wonder why the hell there's the stereotype that Americans are more individualistic?

squeefers8• 5 months ago

im sorry but just because theres a social taboo on littering does not mean they are all cooperating. the common man in japan is as much of a wage slave as a western man, they are held captive, they arent cooperating any more than slaves did in 1800s

IAmBroom3• 5 months ago

This feels like a hypothesis with null testing of N=1 (China, North and South - which is a bit like saying "North Americans, Canadians and Mexicans).

A big MAYBE behind of lot of words and reasoning. IME that usually leads to good sales for pop non-fiction, but not a meaningful cause&effect relationship, necessarily.

Rice Theory: Why Eastern Cultures Are More Cooperative (2014)

Related Stories